60
edits
Changes
Talk:Science of global warming (view source)
Revision as of 20:42, July 3, 2007
, 20:42, July 3, 2007no edit summary
::I have a note to add to this discussion. You (I am not sure of the author, they are not listed) say above, "we want to present both sides." Unless I am mistaken, this discussion is revolving around the acquisition of '''facts''' for an article on Global Warming. You cannot "present both sides" of a fact, because facts do not have two sides. There is not a 'liberal' side and a 'conservative' side of a fact. There are two sides to every story, every debate, every controversy, but facts have only one side: unbiased truth. The only way that you can present a fact is to present it without bias. You cannot fix 'liberal bias' on a 'fact' by instead presenting the fact with 'conservative bias'. You can, however, fix liberal bias on an article which ''interprets'' facts, and from them produces an opinion. You could, in this way, "present both sides" by reporting a study (a fact) along with two articles - one from a source widely considered to be 'liberal', and one from a source widely considered to be 'conservative'. But first, you ''must'' present the facts. [[User:Simple|Simple]] 09:59 (GMT -5) 3 July 2007
::I have a note to add to this discussion. You (I am not sure of the author, they are not listed) say above, "we want to present both sides." Unless I am mistaken, this discussion is revolving around the acquisition of '''facts''' for an article on Global Warming. You cannot "present both sides" of a fact, because facts do not have two sides. There is not a 'liberal' side and a 'conservative' side of a fact. There are two sides to every story, every debate, every controversy, but facts have only one side: unbiased truth. The only way that you can present a fact is to present it without bias. You cannot fix 'liberal bias' on a 'fact' by instead presenting the fact with 'conservative bias'. You can, however, fix liberal bias on an article which ''interprets'' facts, and from them produces an opinion. You could, in this way, "present both sides" by reporting a study (a fact) along with two articles - one from a source widely considered to be 'liberal', and one from a source widely considered to be 'conservative'. But first, you ''must'' present the facts. [[User:Simple|Simple]] 09:59 (GMT -5) 3 July 2007
Ed, it seams to me that it's allmost impossible to get you to talk about the subject in hand, which was your claim on the article pages, that there is no consensus over global warming amongs scientists. You have in no way commented my critisism towards your source and age of the study nor have you commented in any way the other evidences i provide. You just keep ranting on liberal bias where there clearly is none to be found, just you trying to defend an entry that in no intelligable way can be defended. That is i presume allso the reason why you don't respond to me.
I allso got debressed when i read forward on the article, it's filled with same kind of mistakes, that are so blatant that they must be deliberatly made, for example in the talk about the "hockey stick" chart, to which you put too much emphasis anyways, it's in no way specially important to the study of global warming, you "forget" to mention that there has been response to all the critisism, and actually McKitrick and McIntyre are the ones who have some explaining to do, they for example used dataset with'''degrees''' instead of '''radians''' like it was in the original work, this '''huge''' mistake resulted them to get all the lattitudes wrong. They allso used the wrong number of weather stations etc etc, the list goes on and on. and thats not all! The Hockey stick graph has been defended afterwards by National Academy of Sciences, Nature, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and the American Meteorological Society. There is allso a new study by Ammann and Eugene Wahl of Alfred University, who have analyzed the Mann-Bradley-Hughes (MBH) climate field reconstruction and reproduced the MBH results using their own computer code. They found that the MBH method is robust even when numerous modifications are employed. i put the link to that study down below. So i hope all these facts get to the article as well, as they should if this site really tryes to be truthfull. But all this can wait, please answer first to my questions about the global warming consensus and then we can continue to this subject. [http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/25/mckitrick-mucks-it-up ][http://alba.jrc.it/blog/climate/?p=61] [http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml] [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimaticChange_inPress.pdf] [http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/06/wall-street-journal-op-eds-distorting_06.html] [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 16:42, 3 July 2007 (EDT)